Suckswatch

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:36 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:18 am
Then I suggest you stick to facts. Saying that a group has a disproportionate influence in the world is an opinion, and in this case a bigoted one at that. It isn't a fact because it is essentially untestable and unmeasurable.
Such things can be measured as influence can be defined by the percentage of political offices or corporate executive positions held by a group relative to their percentage of the population. Certainly, with regards to U.S. politics, it can and really has been measured. Disproportionate influence in U.S. politics also inherently translates to disproportionate influence on world affairs given the position of the United States in the world.

Proabivouac
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by Proabivouac » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:05 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:37 am
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:24 am
What I am saying is it is not bigotry or a conspiracy theory to state that Jews have an outsized influence in U.S. politics and world affairs, meaning disproportionately greater than their share of the population.
And what I'm saying is that, yes it is bigotry and a conspracy theory; and that you are a bigot and a conspiracy theorist to say it. I hope that's clear.
That's not in evidence. That's your theory of mind, and its not a priori an unreasonable one, but it's not in evidence. It cannot reasonably be denied that TDA's statement is true. Just compare their influence to that of, say, black Americans. Sometimes people point this out because they are pushing an antisemitic agenda. Sometimes they say it for other reasons.

Of course this does not mean that anyone's influence is a net negative. It sounds like TDA is saying that it's a negatively affects coverage of Israel, because it blinds us to truths about middle eastern politics which might be useful to undertand. Okay. What's the problem with this? If that's the extent of his alleged bigotry, fine with me.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:17 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:05 am
That's not in evidence. That's your theory of mind, and its not a priori an unreasonable one, but it's not in evidence. It cannot reasonably be denied that TDA's statement is true. Just compare their influence to that of, say, black Americans. Sometimes people point this out because they are pushing an antisemitic agenda. Sometimes they say it for other reasons.

Of course this does not mean that anyone's influence is a net negative. It sounds like TDA is saying that it's a negatively affects coverage of Israel, because it blinds us to truths about middle eastern politics which might be useful to undertand. Okay. What's the problem with this? If that's the extent of his alleged bigotry, fine with me.
I wasn't even bringing it up to assert anything about the effects of such influence. The point was that the influence is significant and thus someone wanting to criticize how Wikipedia handles articles related to Israel and Jews in general is not dwelling on something unimportant as was suggested with regards to Barbour in this thread.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by Renée Bagslint » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:29 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:05 am
That's not in evidence. That's your theory of mind, and its not a priori an unreasonable one, but it's not in evidence.
We can only access the state of someone's mind by what they say: and we can judge what they say by its content and its context. When someone changes the subject of the thread to discuss some other topic, it is reasonable to assume that they feel strongly about it. When someone claims that those assertions which they feel strongly about are undisputable facts, when they are opinions, it is reasonable to assume that they are prejudging the issue, not thinking rationally about it. And when those opinions are ones that are most commonly heard from bigots and conspiracy theorists, it is reasonable to conclude that the state of that person's mind is that they too are a bigot and a conspiracy theorist.

Let's not beat about the bush here. People who go on about Jews having a disproportionate influence in politics are echoing comments made by anti-Semites of the worst kind.

Proabivouac
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by Proabivouac » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:46 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:29 am
And when those opinions are ones that are most commonly heard from bigots and conspiracy theorists, it is reasonable to conclude that the state of that person's mind is that they too are a bigot and a conspiracy theorist.

Let's not beat about the bush here. People who go on about Jews having a disproportionate influence in politics are echoing comments made by anti-Semites of the worst kind.
No, no, no. It does not follow that because antisemites say a certain thing that anyone else who says it is ipso facto an antisemite. Maybe there are some house ideas which are so novel and idiosyncratic that the chance that any non-antisemite would say them approaches zero, but the assertion that Jews have a larger influence upon American politics than their numbers might suggest isn't one of them.

Just relax, okay? If TDA is the new Hitler I'm sure there will be more signs than this. It is bad to accuse people of foul or even genocidal motives without evidence, and poisonous to the cause of productive discussion.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:48 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:29 am
We can only access the state of someone's mind by what they say: and we can judge what they say by its content and its context. When someone changes the subject of the thread to discuss some other topic, it is reasonable to assume that they feel strongly about it. When someone claims that those assertions which they feel strongly about are undisputable facts, when they are opinions, it is reasonable to assume that they are prejudging the issue, not thinking rationally about it. And when those opinions are ones that are most commonly heard from bigots and conspiracy theorists, it is reasonable to conclude that the state of that person's mind is that they too are a bigot and a conspiracy theorist.

Let's not beat about the bush here. People who go on about Jews having a disproportionate influence in politics are echoing comments made by anti-Semites of the worst kind.
I wasn't changing the topic to anything. You all changed it by crying "bigot" over me stating a fact (and it is a fact) as if somehow I would not object to such ridiculous slander. This is not something I "feel" is a fact. No serious scholar would entertain the idea that a group's influence cannot be measured.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by Auggie » Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:32 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:06 am
White people also have a disproportionate level of influence on the world.
Do you see how strange that sounds?

Yet how many Wikipedians are at war with the "Wikipedia Whites" like Barbour is with the "Wikipedia Jews"?

He's got problems, that guy.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:06 pm

Auggie wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:32 pm
Do you see how strange that sounds?
I don't think it sounds strange at all.
Yet how many Wikipedians are at war with the "Wikipedia Whites" like Barbour is with the "Wikipedia Jews"?
They might not say "Wikipedia Whites" in so many words, but diminishing the influence of white people on Wikipedia is kind of a thing.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by Auggie » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:25 pm

haha they still suck

no matter how many dumb old threads CrowsPoop tries to keep moving, the place is boring.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by Renée Bagslint » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:54 am

I'm afraid so. It's surprising how quickly invective becomes boring unless it's extremely well-done.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests